posted
Unfortunately all these original shows are ruining a novel idea I've been kicking around for a while. It was going to be about a group of people starting an online only TV network with all original programming. I guess I could still write it since there is still nothing quite like what I had in mind. Plus the story isn't really about the business, the business is just the means to bring all these people together so I could always just change the business.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just started watching it. This show and House of Cards are great examples of Netflix's ability to rival HBO.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. And where "House of Cards" was merely good, OITNB is actually pretty freakin good. It deserves tv awards.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've only just heard about this in the last couple days, but I've heard fantastic reviews.
The cast is really interesting too.
Alas, no Netflix for me.
It's $8 a month, less than the price of a movie ticket. Check out some list of what's available on there and binge watch what interests you. Or get a password from a friend.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Netflix is pretty good at providing fast video streaming to you at the data connection you have. That said "bad internet" could mean quite a range of things, and at some level it's just no longer feasible to stream video. I find, though, I that I get significantly better streaming with Netflix than with youtube when running on slower connections. So if you're OK with your youtube experience you'll probably feel the same about Netflix.
posted
Brett Martin's recent book "Difficult Men," about the new paradigm of dramatic TV summed up what I think of shows like this rather well: hourlong television featuring men is dark and serious, but we don't have the wherewithal as a society, or possible the tv studios don't have it, to show women in hour long serious dramas. Stories featuring women have to be serialist and "funny," abandoning realism and verisimilitude in favor of light-hearted, consequence-free light fair.
Having watched the first 3 episodes, I find the material to be less than compelling for these drawbacks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: how practical is it if you have bad internet?
I had bad internet for several months (Clear Wireless is terrible, for the record) and I couldn't get shows on Netflix to work. They'd stream a minute or two (in low quality, pixelated video), then buffer for three minutes, then show a minute or two, then buffer... I gave up.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Orange is the New Black" is a pretty serious show Orincoro, unless "serious" is supposed to mean "relentlessly dark and gritty." The setting is a minimum security prison where the warden is a decent person and where the women of the prison actually try to get along. It's nothing less for being a dramedy and for not being Oz: YY edition.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the show is uneven but overall pretty good. I wish more of the characters were more likeable, but I guess in prison you can't hope for too much. The way backstories are coming in dribs and drabs makes me feel rather manipulated (I know TV drama is *always* manipulating the viewers, but I don't want to notice it more than I have to), but I want to keep watching anyway.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: "Orange is the New Black" is a pretty serious show Orincoro, unless "serious" is supposed to mean "relentlessly dark and gritty." The setting is a minimum security prison where the warden is a decent person and where the women of the prison actually try to get along. It's nothing less for being a dramedy and for not being Oz: YY edition.
It's true, it's nothing less for being the genre that it is. I suppose I am noting that of Netflix's original outings, one follows the mold of HBO serious drama, and the other the mold of lighter female fare. As if we are not ready for serious drama revolving around women.
Then again, House of Cards *did* have female characters who, although they mostly had relationships and conflicts centered around men (what else is new), at least carried whole plot arcs on their own- something even the Sopranos could barely handle.
It's the difference between criticizing the genre and the show itself: this show is absolutely fine. There is a place for it. But I suppose I will be counting down to when we are seen as mature enough to deal with a female character whose problems are not so cute. And please, no argument necessary here, for all that may be seen as serious in Orange is the New Black, cute is the prevailing tone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think the show is uneven but overall pretty good. I wish more of the characters were more likeable, but I guess in prison you can't hope for too much. The way backstories are coming in dribs and drabs makes me feel rather manipulated (I know TV drama is *always* manipulating the viewers, but I don't want to notice it more than I have to), but I want to keep watching anyway.
I think, though perhaps its an unfair comparison to make, that this show is playing it safe by imitating a network series, certainly more than House of Cards did. The nice thing about the immediate release concept was that House of Cards could play with all the good parts of hour-long drama, and not bother with the annoying bits, like re-establishing character relationships and repeating information. This show does that too, but the 4th wall elements of House of Cards, the Richard III take-offs especially, were refreshing in their acknowledgement of this show not really being a show in any sense other than that it was spaced episodically and resembles a television format. It made it clear from episode one that the expectations of hour-long drama don't necessarily apply. When the main character talks to the camera, in confidentiality, the reality of the action is transformed and suspended: this establishes a relationship between Spacey and the audience, and demands closer attention than a TV drama is comfortable demanding: you are *being shown*, you are not *seeing*. There is a difference.
I think I know exactly why Spacey took this gig, actually, and why he was cast. The aesthetic is *very* similar to the one in American Beauty, but takes the relationship with the viewer even deeper. Knowing that Underwood is a schemer and a hustler, and wants you to know it too, doesn't relieve the tension in the slightest, because Spacey controls the action: he shows you what he wants you to see- he is "acting" in the scenes he plays in, and acting for the audience too. But we as an audience *also* can't trust that we are truly in his confidence. He is no more likely to be honest with us than with himself or others. And in scenes wherein he has no part to play, there is dramatic tension involved in the fact that we know what is happening and he doesn't- his character becomes vulnerable in the hands of the audience itself, as if we have secrets we can't share with him. It's highly involving. Orange is the New Black doesn't approach that level of sophistication with its audience.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I generally don't like too serious. (Breaking Bad is the exception because it's so damned clever.) I just don't watch stuff like that; there are enough serious things in the actual world. No need to impose them on me during my escapes into the fantastic--and even if this story is actually true, the events are certainly fantastic.
While I agree with you that "cute is the prevailing tone", I'm happy with it. At points it has--in some very minor ways--the feel of something like Wonderfalls or Pushing Daisies. I adore both of those shows and it makes me love Orange is the New Black that much more.
All that said, I think you're completely right. Just not for this show.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think the show is uneven but overall pretty good. I wish more of the characters were more likeable, but I guess in prison you can't hope for too much. The way backstories are coming in dribs and drabs makes me feel rather manipulated (I know TV drama is *always* manipulating the viewers, but I don't want to notice it more than I have to), but I want to keep watching anyway.
I think, though perhaps its an unfair comparison to make, that this show is playing it safe by imitating a network series, certainly more than House of Cards did. The nice thing about the immediate release concept was that House of Cards could play with all the good parts of hour-long drama, and not bother with the annoying bits, like re-establishing character relationships and repeating information. This show does that too, but the 4th wall elements of House of Cards, the Richard III take-offs especially, were refreshing in their acknowledgement of this show not really being a show in any sense other than that it was spaced episodically and resembles a television format. It made it clear from episode one that the expectations of hour-long drama don't necessarily apply. When the main character talks to the camera, in confidentiality, the reality of the action is transformed and suspended: this establishes a relationship between Spacey and the audience, and demands closer attention than a TV drama is comfortable demanding: you are *being shown*, you are not *seeing*. There is a difference.
I think I know exactly why Spacey took this gig, actually, and why he was cast. The aesthetic is *very* similar to the one in American Beauty, but takes the relationship with the viewer even deeper. Knowing that Underwood is a schemer and a hustler, and wants you to know it too, doesn't relieve the tension in the slightest, because Spacey controls the action: he shows you what he wants you to see- he is "acting" in the scenes he plays in, and acting for the audience too. But we as an audience *also* can't trust that we are truly in his confidence. He is no more likely to be honest with us than with himself or others. And in scenes wherein he has no part to play, there is dramatic tension involved in the fact that we know what is happening and he doesn't- his character becomes vulnerable in the hands of the audience itself, as if we have secrets we can't share with him. It's highly involving. Orange is the New Black doesn't approach that level of sophistication with its audience.
I've seen four episodes of House of Cards (and none of this). But sometimes I don't like it when Spacey explains something I already know. And sometimes he'll narrate a metaphor/analogy and he'll narrate it a second time at the end of the scene.
"Will he choose the pack or herd?"
Dialogue
"I guess he chose the herd"
It's interesting but hardly perfect.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I hear this from a lot of people about the original House of Cards. I gave it a few episodes but just couldn't get into it.
Perhaps I am an unrefined boor, but I found it to be deadly dull.
Yeah. I hate it when people say that something that was created decades earlier is better than the newer interpretation. I heard the same thing about Battlestar Galactica and I just didn't understand it. I think a lot of it has to do with nostalgia, but sometimes it may just be personal preference. I'm not saying that new equals better, but I've found it to be more or less true for me. The only exception, I think, would be the original Star Trek 2, which I thought was leagues better than the one that just came out.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the original a few weeks ago, having seen the remake first. The former is more direct, less bloated and clunky, and the main character far more charming and ruthless. The character of the reporter is more engaging and her relationship with the main character more interesting (in the netflix version, she basically says to Spacy: You can have my body in exchange for being my source. In the original, she is seduced and utterly mesmerized by the conniving politician, which really doesn't stop her from earnestly digging for the truth.)
...plays the coke addicted character that corresponds to the representative from Pennsylvania, and he's simply better than that bald guy.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Natasha Lyonne in this, I kind of pretend that this is her same character from But I'm a Cheerleader, and things just didn't work out with her girlfriend from the end of the movie.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed House of Cards A LOT, but mostly because of Spacey. I'm not a fan of Robin Wright or Kate Mara.
OitNB was just alright for me. I don't like the main character at all. The other characters (Especially Kate Mulgrew!) were more interesting to me. I just don't CARE for the main character, or Jason Biggs for that matter.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Netflix is evil. I have OD'd on mediocre movies and serial TV. I love-hate it so much. If my ISP charged by the megabyte, I'd be way-broke.
I binged on both OisNB and HoC. I almost wish they didn't just dump in all the episodes at once. Gulping such content doesn't give it time to digest. Causes family conflict too. Thanks for allowing me to play the victim.
Whatever you might say about both those original series, isn't it agreed it is better than anything you get on the big three (or with Fox, four)? And commercial free (so an hour show is like ... an hour!).
That Netflix can do that level of programming .and. provide all the other content they do on a monthly budget of $8 per household per month amazes me. I would happily pay $20*.
*except that I already watched practically everything within the genres I enjoy.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:That Netflix can do that level of programming .and. provide all the other content they do on a monthly budget of $8 per household per month amazes me. I would happily pay $20*.
SSSSSHHHHHH we aren't supposed to say this out loud.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on my second month. No idea why I waited so long.
I'm wondering how I survived other summers without it - with three kids at home and home just about every day myself. I had planned to cancel when school started back, but I know I can't. I just...can't. I NEED it.
posted
Ok, I just finished the last couple episodes of OitNB. I'm going to upgrade it from "just ok" to "better than 90% of other shows on TV".
Once you got to know more about some of the characters it became more enjoyable. The minor characters gave me a better sense of enjoyment than Piper's story, and it almost makes me wish they will focus less on Piper and more on the minor characters in Season 2. Laverne Cox is superb, as is Vicky Jeudy and Uzo Aduba.
My favorite character is Red (Because... Kate Mulgrew, how could she not be my favorite), with Taystee (Danielle Brooks) a close second.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rob Lister: That Netflix can do that level of programming .and. provide all the other content they do on a monthly budget of $8 per household per month amazes me. I would happily pay $20*.
For me, their current price is just about right for what they offer. If they keep dropping excellent original shows then they can justify raising their price. But you ever remember going to a video rental store and seeing shoddy, straight to video movies and thinking "who in the world rents THAT"? 80% of Netflix's catalog are those movies.
Currently going through Aaron Sorkin's West Wing seasons. Really enjoying it.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Ok, I just finished the last couple episodes of OitNB. I'm going to upgrade it from "just ok" to "better than 90% of other shows on TV".
Once you got to know more about some of the characters it became more enjoyable. The minor characters gave me a better sense of enjoyment than Piper's story, and it almost makes me wish they will focus less on Piper and more on the minor characters in Season 2. Laverne Cox is superb, as is Vicky Jeudy and Uzo Aduba.
My favorite character is Red (Because... Kate Mulgrew, how could she not be my favorite), with Taystee (Danielle Brooks) a close second.
How about that ending.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I'm on my second month. No idea why I waited so long.
I'm wondering how I survived other summers without it - with three kids at home and home just about every day myself. I had planned to cancel when school started back, but I know I can't. I just...can't. I NEED it.
Help me.
I waited so long because I have bad internet and sometimes it does lag on me and is really frusterating.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Ok, I just finished the last couple episodes of OitNB. I'm going to upgrade it from "just ok" to "better than 90% of other shows on TV".
Once you got to know more about some of the characters it became more enjoyable. The minor characters gave me a better sense of enjoyment than Piper's story, and it almost makes me wish they will focus less on Piper and more on the minor characters in Season 2. Laverne Cox is superb, as is Vicky Jeudy and Uzo Aduba.
My favorite character is Red (Because... Kate Mulgrew, how could she not be my favorite), with Taystee (Danielle Brooks) a close second.
How about that ending.
The ending was alright. I guess the writers needed some sort of way to end the season on a cliffhanger of sorts. I don't think it was really THAT strong, but maybe it is due to the character they had confronting Piper. It all felt too cliche for me.
The Christmas pageant portion though.... I loved that.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Probably most here know of Instant Watcher (IW), but for those who don't ...
When I first got Netflix, I cancelled after about two months because I had seen all the obvious programming they provided.
Trying to use the native Netflix browsing and search interfaces associated with any Netflix-capable device is tedious at best, dreadful at worst.
While Netflix offers pretty decent recommendations, a user can't begin to know the full extent of hidden jewels. But since they have an open API web interface, third party sites can query their database. That's what IW does.
The IW site isn't the prettiest web design out there, but it is very functional; very rich in search and sort features. Additionally, you can queue directly from IW.
Thanks for reading.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Brett Martin's recent book "Difficult Men," about the new paradigm of dramatic TV summed up what I think of shows like this rather well: hourlong television featuring men is dark and serious, but we don't have the wherewithal as a society, or possible the tv studios don't have it, to show women in hour long serious dramas. Stories featuring women have to be serialist and "funny," abandoning realism and verisimilitude in favor of light-hearted, consequence-free light fair.
Having watched the first 3 episodes, I find the material to be less than compelling for these drawbacks.
This is a fair criticism of the first three episodes, but not the entire series. It gets twisty and dark and complicated pretty quickly. It's like a sugar-coated pill. The "light-hearted, consequence-free" thing wore off pretty gradually, but it's right up there with best TV there is before the end.
It starts out to make you laugh at caricatures of people, but that's the hook. Before you know it, it's got you by the short hairs and you start to see "crazy eyes" as a complicated person, and the 'sympathetic prison counselor' as not all that sympathetic after all.
If you compare it to, say, the last season of OZ, Oz comes off looking a bit more like melodrama than gritty realism. (I liked Oz, even when it was preachy. But I could tell it was overselling its causes by the end.)
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to temper my hopes for future seasons of this show.
I liked the first season quite a bit, but I think it suffers from the same problem that affects nearly all serial dramas - the characters always act in ways that predictably lead to drama. When it's done skilfully - which I admit it is in OITNB - their motivations make sense, but the way things consistently line up for MAXIMUM DRAMA can eventually make me tired of watching.
This is how I feel about Dexter (although I'm going to watch to the end and consider it a very good show) and how I felt about many other shows which drew me in at first but then eventually made me kind of sick of all the characters.
It's not that I don't think people are like that - there are people whose lives are consistently dramatic, and I think the reasons often amount to character quirks which are fair game for TV characters. But between the coincidences that lead to constant escalation of stakes, and the way people never succeed in making life better, since there's always just MORE DRAMA, I get tired.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if they manage to keep some of the lead characters very sympathetic. In Breaking Bad, at least they are going full on anti-hero which is a guilty sort of fun. I guess it COULD be entertaining if Piper turns into some kind of prison badass...but I'm not sure I want to see more frustration and escalating mistakes driven by her own character flaws.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really, really enjoying OITNB, but the last episode has me feeling extremely cautious about its future in the same way as scifibum.
I watched Weeds to the end and this has the same creator. Every season she hyped up the drama to the point of it ruining the set up of the show so that the main character had to burn the past relationships, neighborhood, etc and move on to keep the show going. I think the creator is great at creating interesting conflict but very poor at resolving that conflict in satisfying ways.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy this show at first. I honestly hadn't heard or seen anything for it until it came out and I saw the advertisement on Netflix. With House of Cards and Arrested Development, I saw advanced reviews and internet ads galore. When I finally sat down to watch the show (mostly because of the familiar actors attached, such as Biggs, Prepon, and good old captain Janeway), I wasn't all that interested. I was sort of hoping for that initial addiction that you get with a really great opening, like with House of Cards, but I endured and ended up really enjoying it.
The end of season 1 was startling. I guess you could see the stabbing coming, but the beat down was a twist. I actually thought it was great, because it forced the main character to do something that she normally wouldn't have. She's evolving, and I'm beginning to wonder if we're watching another Breaking Bad, where the character becomes a twisted version of her former self. However, while that does sound like a cool story arch, I doubt that's what will happen.
I'm curious as to whether or not this show will continue after 2 seasons. Piper is only supposed to be in prison for a year, and it is supposed to be based on a true story (which I feel is both a blessing and a curse), so I have to wonder how much freedom they really have. After all, did the real Piper actually experience all of this (I doubt it)? If not, then does that mean that the possibilities are open?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
